The Union’s chief propagandists – It’s the BBC Stupid! – Part 1



by Christian Wright (updated)

The media are a real impediment to a fair debate on the issues germane to independence, and they are a very real danger to a successful outcome in the referendum.

By far the biggest threat comes from the BBC. The state broadcasting network has tremendous power to influence opinion in Scotland.

The BBC has systematically diverted resources and public money to further its Unionist political agenda in violation law and its corporate charter.

It has offered as news, propaganda designed to advance the case of the NO campaign and to brief against the interests of the YES campaign.

In its reaction to criticism the BBC’s management has displayed sickening arrogance and a preening self regard, amply demonstrated in their treatment of the highly respected academic, Dr John Robertson and his peer reviewed study that offered dispositive evidence of the Corporation’s deceit and corrupt practices.

Their attempt to bully and silence the academic rather than address the substantive issues in his report, suggests the beeb may be irredeemable.

Will it require perp-walking its executives out of Pacific Quay in handcuffs to bring the Corporation to Jesus over its wrong-doing? Enquiring minds and procurators fiscal wonder.

The evidence is overwhelming that the intent is to fix the outcome of the referendum by systematically and maliciously undermining the electoral process.

Its power to do so is derived from the public’s perception that it’s news and analyses are fair and impartial, and that it’s output is a truthful representation of the facts.

Succinctly: The BBC has power because it is believed.

It should be a priority of the Independence Movement to disabuse the electorate of that notion.

The best and most effective propaganda is propaganda that is not recognised as propaganda by its victims.This sort of customer conditioning is worth its weight in gold.

How much do you think hours of daily free pro-unionist television advertising will be worth over the next six months, augmented by a daily diet of SNP-bashing in the national press?

What needs to be prioritized is not offering counterpoint to every dingbat charge the opposition dreams up, or challenging false or misleading data it presents, but neutralizing the effectiveness of the conduit through which the lies and “inaccuracies” are disseminated.

We have no megaphone loud enough to be well heard over the din of the daily diet of “Salmond Accused!” propaganda articles in the Scotsman and Herald, or the latest invented fracas caused by the mistreatment of a news story by the Beeb.

One of the most egregious examples of malfeasance was the invention of a Labour victory at the last local elections. This was a tour de force in the black art of fooling all of the people some of the time.



In that election the SNP surpassed Labour, the Tories, and the Liberals,  increased their representation in Glasgow, gaining the greatest number of seats country-wide of any party, and winning the popular vote.

This was a sui generis event in the annals of British politics, where a party five years in government, beat the opposition in a midterm election, taking seats from all parties and won the popular vote.

Compare this with the performance of the Tories and LibDems south of the border, were the Labour opposition made significant gains overall against the Coalition.

Yet incredibly, the BBC and the print press spun this as a crushing victory for Labour and a humiliating defeat for the SNP.

This through-the-looking-glass analysis was predicated on the notion that since Labour had held onto Glasgow with a reduced majority, they had somehow triumphed over the SNP.

By way of corroboration, a fist-pumping, and apparently victorious Labour, were depicted in a celebratory photo and accompanying video and articles of their “comeback”.



Johann Lamont Scottish Labour

What that photo actually captures is the Labour leaders realization that after a near death experience, they are still alive.

The smiles and joy are not those of victory, but of relief. They had lost seats in Glasgow, failed to beat the five-year incumbent governing party, and had failed to stem that party’s advance.

This was the first time in modern British political history that this had happened.

Even the most ineffectual, incompetent, useless, opposition parties in British political history had done, not just better, but much better than this shower. Yet they are presented to the public as victors.

The BBC and other media provided contrast to fit their wholly false narrative with this  misleading atypical photo of the SNP campaign on election night.

Let’s call this what it is – it is lying pure and simple. It is manipulation of an election result to mislead citizens into believing the opposite of the truth.

On Newsnicht, next evening, Lamont and Davidson were seemingly giddy, with the knowledge of the SNP “defeat”, and the interviewer (I think it was Glen Campbell) was sneeringly dismissive of the SNP representative’s claim that the data clearly indicated a victory for his party by every substantive measure.

As suggested earlier, you wouldn’t know it, but Labour actually lost seats in Glasgow compaired to the number of seats they won in the previous council election. But that  is how you determine performance election to election, right?

Wrong. Inexplicably, with respect to the Scottish local elections, the BBC decided that performance in terms of gains and losses should be determined by who held the seat the day prior to the election.

Why is this important? Well you see, in the run-up to the election, Labour in Glasgow was fragmenting, and the internal divisions over who got what job,  caused a number of Labour councilors to throw their rattles out of the pram, resign from the party, and stand as independent Labour at the election.

The BBC by measuring gains and losses based on who held the seat the day before the election (something they had never done before in Scotland – ever) rather than who won the seat at the previous council elections, allowed them to report as Labour gains, those “Independent” seats in staunch Labour wards that they were always going to retain and never going to lose, in a month of Sundays.

It was actually stated that by the BBC that Labour had “won back Glasgow”, but the obvious question is, won it back from whom?

The answer is they won it back from themselves. That’s how cosmically dumb and pernicious the BBC argument is in justifying this twisting of the facts and defiling of the truth.

Have a look at that master of condescension, David Dimbleby, doing does what he does best – being economical with the truth and grossly misleading. Watch out for him using the foregoing canard to inflate the number of Labour “gains”.

Near the end Norman Smith lies through his back teeth about who won the most seats in the election. He did so to suport the rest of his thesis of a resurgent Labour in Scotland, which was the meme du jour of the BBC and the print press.

He also tries to conflate the council election results with the referendum – somehow, someway, with hand-waving fuzzy logic.

Consider his  language too – Labour didn’t hold or retain or keep Glasgow (the customary and usual nomenclature), no, in Smiths doublespeak,  they won Glasgow.


In the Beeb’s Orwellian view, when you lose that is a victory, and when you win, as the SNP did, that’s a defeat. Doubleplusgood, BBC, doubleplusgood!


The Big Lie culminated in the infamous FMQ Great Labour Kabuki Dance, where the whole of their Holyrood parliamentary contingent cheered and back-slapped for all they were worth as their leader, Lamont, rose to speak (much of the impact of this is lost by the BBC’s narrator drowning it out).

They understood that in politics perception is the reality . . . at least it is for a while.

Public perception of who are the winners and who are the losers is formed in that critical period right after an election, when the numbers are in and the assembled political cognoscenti of press and television tell us what to think.

The average citizen ignoring most of all of this but inculcating some of it, got the impression that Labour had given the SNP “a helluva beating”.

In the end truth will out, the data are the data, and the reality finally prevailed, but by then it was too late.

For any corrections to have meaningful influence, the serried ranks of the Great Unwashed have to be paying attention, and trust me, come the weekend after the Thursday election, they wont be.

It is in my view, somewhere near useless that the news media correct their “unfortunate errors” sometime after this critical incubatory period – no one is listening. More exactly, no one who counts is listening.

So, pretty much no matter what one tries to do, say beyond 48 hours post election, will provide you meager returns. You’re just pissing against the wind.


The need is to be proactive in countering the effectiveness of the messaging.

There is a crying need for a coordinated and concerted effort to undermine the risible notion of BBC impartiality, by drawing the attention of the electorate to its malfeasance, again and again, and again, until it is inculcated into the public consciousness.

It is clear now that this is the strategy of the opposition with respect to the First Minister. Bring down Salmond, and you decapitate the independence movement.

While each attack in itself presents no existential threat, the constant stream of attacks, day after, week, after month, after year, will take its toll and serve to destroy the First Minister’s credibility and blacken his reputation (or so they believe).

The opposition cannot possibly hope to achieve this without the complicity of the press and broadcast media, united in common cause.

The 800lb gorilla of that unholy alliance is the state broadcasting system – the BBC.

We cannot hope to unstick the Beeb and force change in its institutional position on independence, but we can go far to ameliorating its toxic influence on the outcome of the plebiscite on independence, by hammering home the message of its political corruption.

The next treatment of this subject offers suggestions on how that might be achieved: 


Servation poll conducted 17-18 February 2014

YES  up 6 points   NO  loses 5 points

Sensational results in the first poll to have been conducted after Osborne’s ultimatum and bully-boy behaviour, the extortion threats of a bar on independence if Scotland didn’t pony-up 120 Billion in kickbacks to London, and the racketeering of capo di tutti capi Ed Balls, and sixth form class monitor Douglas “Squeaky” Alexander.

The Survation poll shows there’s a 6% swing to YES and a 5% drop in the NO vote relative to their last poll in late January.



The data were gathered after Osborne’s shakedown debacle and after the lunatic ramblings of Jose Manuel Barroso, who gave a stream of consciousness riff  warning that Scotland couldn’t possibly be admitted to the EU, the very institution of which it has been a member in good standing for forty years.

There is very little else one can point to for the cause of this sea change in voter sentiment except the near hysterical behaviour of NO and their running-dogs abroad.

The results were:  YES 38%, NO 47%, DK 16%



The Fiction of the Continuing State


uk coat of arms


Grand Larceny and the fiction of the continuing state

By Christian Wright

Legal OpinionPart IV of the legal opinion published by HMG last year claims Scotland was “extinguished” when it was absorbed by England in 1707, and that the dispositive evidence to the contrary of the Articles of Union can be discounted.

With the best will in the world, this part of the document appears to be risible.

It is the work of two eminent lawyers James Crawford, and Alan Boyle who were tasked to provide legal advocacy and the imprimatur of learned consideration, for a line of argument that does not withstand even the most cursory examination.

Is is unclear how it could pass the scrutiny of any impartial jurist. It is beyond understanding that the Scottish Government has ceded this ground without any apparent resistance.

If you peruse Part IV of the UK Government’s Legal Opinion of 2013 (link above), HMG went to extraordinary lengths to argue England is the continuator state.

HMG asserts that iScotland will be a brand new state and as such not heir to the assets of the UK. They do hold however, that Scotland is heir to the liabilities of the UK. This is surely a case study in having your cake and eating it too.

HMG had no alternative but to argue that case if it is to be reasonably sure of retaining its vanity permanent seat on the UN Security Council, have minimum difficulties in retaining its opt-outs within the EU, and to continue the fiction of a UK marching on “move along, nothing to see here” as a major power.

The fly in the ointment is that they simply cannot afford another £100 billion+ debt on the books as their state is simultaneously diminished, losing close to 10% of its GDP, 90% of its oil and gas reserves and revenues, and a third of its landmass.

That is why they have adopted this convoluted and improbable argument that Scotland was “extinguished” when it was incorporated into England in 1707, that England continued, and that the titles “UK” and “England” are synonymous, describing the same continuing unitary state.

They argue that therefore Scotland is part of the territory of the continuator state of England/UK, a part which will secede from the mother country of which it has been a province for the past 307 years. iScotland will then be a newly born state with no right to the assets of the UK but liable for it debts.

However, the Articles of Union of 1707 do seem to offer dispositive evidence to the contrary. Consider this statement from Article IX:

‘… the Parliament of Great-Britain, to be raised in that Part of the united Kingdom, now called England …’

Now, doesn’t that single statement kill HMG’s case stone dead? What it is saying is that England is part of the UK, not that it is the UK or that it has absorbed Scotland, which by deduction must be the other part of the UK and therefore not part of England. That is to say, the statement tells us they are both component parts of a binary union. N’est-ce pas?

Is spelling the obvious out like that getting too tedious? Well OK, that is but one example of the evidence leading inexorably to the conclusion that HMG’s position is bunk.

Now HMG in its legal opinion, discounts the relevance of the Treaty (acts) of Union of 1707. We’re not here to argue their case, but to challenge it. The treaty and enabling acts of parliaments that created the UK are not relevant?

Now, that case might be made but it is very thin gruel indeed, and the argument being offered here is that there is at least one other narrative that is far more robust.

Alright, so can we construct that more reasonable and convincing case?

Well let’s see . . .

Articles of Union

The United Kingdom of Great Britain is a legal and political entity formed by the Union of two and only two countries – the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England (incorporating Wales). It was created by a bilateral internationally recognised treaty.

It is the case that upon dissolution of the Treaty of Union, its associated enabling acts of parliaments, and any subsequent contingent intra-state treaties and agreements derived therefrom, the United Kingdom of Great Britain will cease to be.

As you might expect, two and only two successor states will emerge from its discarded husk – the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England. There can be no continuing state of an extinguished voluntary union of two nations. It is on its face a daft proposition.

Consider the tautology: When the Union is dissolved, the Union ceases to be.

Scotland as a successor state, just like England, would retain EU membership, though there would have to be negotiations with both successor states and the EU to regularise their new status.

Each will inherit the rights and responsibilities of any inter-state treaties entered into collectively on their behalf by the (by then) defunct United Kingdom.

Each successor state will be heir to their share of the accrued assets of the United Kingdom, and responsible for their share of the liabilities incurred by the United Kingdom during the tenure of their union.

A below the line contributor here (Per Erik) considered this obvious analogue to the situation and to HMG’s line of argument:

“It’s basically a divorce… It’s like saying, after you leave our marriage, I will keep and sustain the entire marriage by myself, and you who leave will be a new born baby with no assets whatsoever, but you will still have to pay the mortgage on our house… Makes sense… If you’re a bit crazy…”

Or if your are a Chancellor of the Exchequer enamoured of larceny and other felonious doings,


The Scottish Government’s incomprehensible response

The Scottish Government has habitually talked about secession and leaving the UK. It has ceded the point that the UK will continue to exist after Scotland leaves.

In doing so it has agreed with the assertions of London that England/UK will be the Continuator State, and conceded that Scotland is not a successor state

As noted, the only way for Scotland and England to be free of one another is by the dissolution of the union that binds them together. That requires that the signatories of that union reemerge as successor states.

You either have two successor states, each heir to the assets and liabilities of their former union,


a single continuing state, heir to all of the assets and liabilities of the former union, AND a completely new state, heir to neither the assets nor the liabilities of the former union.

This is self evident, yet the Government of Scotland, charged with the responsibility of representing the interests of the People, has singularly failed to usefully challenge the outrageous assertion that Scotland does not exist, that the territory describing the realm of Scotland is today and has been for the past 307 years, an integral part of England, and that consequently, we are all Englishmen and women.

The Union Government by adopting the findings of this opinion, has officially denied Scots their homeland, their claim to nationhood, even their very existence as a people.

HMG has explicitly rejected the people of Scotland’s claim to their fair share of the accrued fruits of their labours over the past three centuries, manifest in the current aggregate wealth of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

This wealth exists in the form of the Union’s treasure, its institutions, its treaties with foreign states, and its commercial agreements with global business.

The official position of HMG as previously stated, is that Scotland will be a brand new nation, that will have no claim to the assets of the Union, but will be liable for its portion of the liabilities of the Union to the tune of at least £100,000,000,000 (£100 billion).

Oh, and they also want to charge Scots for the huge cost of relocating England’s strategic nuclear arsenal currently ensconced in Faslane. You’ve got to admire London’s chutzpah.

Let us be clear about this: The Government of England/UK is signaling its intent to commit larceny on a monumental scale against the Scottish people, and it is doing so without any apparent conscience or embarrassment, in broad daylight, in front of the eyes of the entire world.

Where’s the outrage?

Cameron plants negative stories about indy in Spanish press


Shocking new revelations in the cablegate scandal

By Christian Wright

You remember the article from a week ago on UK diplomatic cables which revealed the UK Government was pressuring foreign powers to make negative statements about the Scottish Government’s policies on independence? [Update – And more information on Cameron being caught red handed conspiring with Putin the Invader to knife Scotland and fix referendum]

Well turns out that not content with pressuring nations to trash the Scottish Government and nobble indy, new information has come to light that the British Embassy in Madrid has been doing the same thing with the Spanish press.

The Spanish paper Tenerife News published a letter (see below) from our man in Madrid, pressuring the paper to publish a Home Office sourced brief about the “challenges” Scotland would face if it left the Union

The paper, printed in full the preface, from which it could be inferred that our embassy’s black-ops agents (well, what would you call them) were going  around Spain’s newspaper one by one, leaning on them to publish our Government’s brief on the risks of Scotland leaving the UK.

The preface to the brief offered that the paper,  “… explores the challenges which an independent Scottish could face in assuming control of its borders and considers the difficult choices that the people in Scotland would have to face on issues such as citizenship and nationality.”

It continued, “It will be a choice between the continuity and security of being part of the UK or the uncertainty and risk of leaving it.”

So clearly, even after being rumbled last week, Cameron and his Bullingdon wide boys, are still doing the dirty on a grand scale. We know now were all those uniformly negative analyses in the foreign press originate. They are lifted straight from anti-Scottish briefs like this.

Could this possibly be the very same avuncular, pasty-faced, Cameron who just last Friday told the world how much he loved and respected us, who only three short days ago told us the referendum was strictly a matter for the Scots to decide, who with gravitas and moment of purpose assured us there would be no interference from him?

Surely there must be some mistake? Couldn’t be! No siree, Bob, not our David. Uh-uh!

We ourselves doubt the man has any intimacy with the truth.. He’s all chutzpah and brass neck.

The full letter from our government is reproduced below for your perusal.

The question for the Scottish electorate remains: How do you trust a proven liar?

[Newly added – the Sunday Herald’s take – click here]

The letter below is from our man in Madrid, Simon Montague to spanish newspapers

Dear Editor

Given the likely interest among your British resident audiences – whether Scottish or otherwise – I am forwarding a press release issued by the Home Office today. You can find it at – it is also reproduced below. I hope you find it interesting.

The paper looks at the implications for borders and citizenship if people in Scotland were to vote for independence. It explores the challenges which an independent Scottish state could face in assuming control of its borders and considers the difficult choices that the people in Scotland would have to face on issues such as citizenship and nationality. It will be a choice between the continuity and security of being part of the UK or the uncertainty and risk of leaving it.

The press release is as follows:

“Common UK citizenship and the unrestricted movement of people and goods between Scotland and other parts of the UK have been crucial in enabling the integration of communities and businesses, the government’s latest Scotland analysis paper concludes.

The Home Office paper, ‘Scotland analysis: Borders and citizenship’, is the tenth in the UK government’s analysis series. It examines the challenges an independent Scotland could face in taking control of its borders, and sets out the difficult choices about citizenship that a yes vote would mean for people in Scotland.

Minister for Immigration Mark Harper said: “The principles addressed in this paper are fundamental to how we define ourselves: our nationality, the border that protects us and the passport we use to travel the world.

“There are no easy answers to the question of what could happen if Scotland goes it alone. There would be a new international border and – however close our coope-ration – that could mean more bureaucracy and extra controls for people travelling to visit family, go on holiday or do business.

“It would also be an unprecedented experiment with nationality and identity that would reverse centuries of common UK citizenship. It would affect not just millions of people today but also generations to come.”

The paper stresses that management of the UK’s external border is complex, expensive and relies on a fully integrated system across the UK. Currently, all activity to manage, control and secure the UK’s border, and every penny spent, benefits each UK citizen wherever they live or work.

However, should Scotland vote for independence, the current boundary between Scotland and the rest of the UK would become an international border between two separate countries.

The analysis also considers the implications of independence for citizenship. If Scotland became an independent state, its new government would decide who would be able to become, or be required to become, a Scottish citizen. This decision would have profound implications affec-ting not only those who vote in the referendum but also their children and grandchildren.

 Simon Montague Director of Communications British Embassy Madrid

Scotland is Too Small to Make it on its Own

Yes, it’s still happening. Despite the voluminous data to the contrary this argument is still made by Britnats and believed by many. The following is the proposition as it appeared below the line to a Feb 2014 Guardian article and Christian Wright’s rebuttal.

“Sam Alner: cant see anything good in being divided when we need to be strong and face the challenges of the next few centuries… the world’s a brutal place to the small.”

Tell that to Norway, there is a hundred thousand pound nest egg in their oil fund for each and every citizen. Oh, did you know Norway is perennially at the top or next to the top for most desirable place to live? A typical example is the United Nations UNDP Index at the end of this post.

Now after you’ve perused it, I have a little test for you.

Which country is NOT on the list? Yes, that’s right, it is the very union you are touting to Scots.

How many of the top three in the list have a population smaller than that of Scotland? Answer 2 of the 3

How many of the top five in the list have a population smaller than that of Scotland? Answer 3 of the 5

How many of the top ten in the list have a population under ten million?Answer is 5.

How many of the top twenty in the list have a population smaller than that of Scotland? Answer 9 of the 20

That’s right, nearly HALF of the top twenty best places to live according to the UN have a population smaller than that of Scotland.

How many of the top twenty in the list have a population under ten million?Answer 11

The United Kingdom you claim to be a safe harbour for little Scotland cannot even get into the top twenty, yet nine of the top twenty who did get on the list, have populations smaller than Scotland’s.

Besides Norway, which tops the entire list, which is the only other small nation not on the list in this show and tell, that has significant oil and gas reserves? Answer is Scotland.

Now, doesn’t the above blow your thesis right out of the water?

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Iceland
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Netherlands
7. Sweden
8. France
9. Switzerland
10. Japan
11. Luxembourg
12. Finland
13. United States
14. Austria
15. Spain
16. Denmark
17. Belgium
18. Italy
19. Liechtenstein
20. New Zealand

Source The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) index published 2009

[These data were published 2009 and the inclusion of Iceland at that time does seem anomalous, but there it is]



Some more recent data follows.

Now Britnats say that small is bad and make the argument that Scotland would have been devastated by the financial meltdown of 2008 because Salmond (it always Salmond, not the Scottish Government or the electorate that does things and wants things) would have been as feckless or more feckless than the incompetent Mr Brown and Mr Darling (you know, the genius whose heading the bitter together campaign).

But OK, let’s look at two basket cases that mirror Scotland’s imaginary fate had it been independent in 2008. Below is the UNHDI with updated data for 2012. Note the positions of Iceland and Ireland.

Both have dropped down that table (a bit) but both are still well in the top twenty. Remember these are the very latest data I could find for 2012.

These too wee, too poor, too stupid, nations are doing rather well. Note also that the only other EU country matching Scotland’s resources, Norway, is still top of the heap.

Alright, so where is that most successful union in the history of the planet we should all be grateful to be part of? You know, the one that’s keeping indolent Scots in Buckfast and fried Mars Bars? The one Cameron was waxing lyrical about just the other day?

Well, it’s down in 26th place, which is a five point drop relative to its position in the table referenced in the original post.

You see, it’s all very well for Cameron to boast of Britain’s wonderful GDP, but if more and more of that wealth is going into the pockets of the few, the reality for the rest of us is a decline in personal wealth, a commensurate decline in living standards, and an ever declining in the quality of life.

Britons, most of us, are getting royally shafted and no matter how far we bend over, with this lot as our masters, it’s never going to be far enough.

Given that reality, is it any wonder that more and more English men and woman are saying they would go with Scotland if only they could.

This Union serves one region well and every other of it regions poorly. Why on earth then, would Scotland want to be a part of it?

Look at the data, they tell a different story from that of project fear. Look what the Union’s doing to you. The Camerons’ and Osbornes’ of this world are laughing at you as you defend the indefensible.

Wake up, England!

For us come March 24 2016, it’s so long and thanks for all the fish, but you’re stuck with it, and it’s you who will have to change it. Can you? Hell yeah. But will you?


1 Steady Norway
2 Steady Australia
3 Increase (1) United States
4 Decrease (1) Netherlands
5 Increase (3) Germany
6 Decrease (1) New Zealand
7 Decrease (2) Ireland
7 Increase (3) Sweden
9 Increase (2) Switzerland
10 Increase (2) Japan
11 Decrease (5) Canada
12 Increase (3) South Korea
13 Steady Hong Kong
13 Steady Iceland
15 Increase (1) Denmark
16 Increase (1) Israel
17 Increase (1) Belgium
18 Increase (1) Austria
18 Increase (8) Singapore
20 Steady France

Source The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) index data published 2013